IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] Are there any restriction on how to use the Color Sub-TLV specified by RFC5512 Tunnel Advertisement?

Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> Tue, 26 June 2018 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 891AB130E14; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_08=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fQNTNKZfBqtV; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11E591310F8; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 8594F50020E99; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 19:54:40 +0100 (IST)
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.40) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 19:54:41 +0100
Received: from SJCEML521-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.90]) by SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.24]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:54:34 -0700
From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
To: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "pmohapat@cisco.com" <pmohapat@cisco.com>, "erosen@cisco.com" <erosen@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Are there any restriction on how to use the Color Sub-TLV specified by RFC5512 Tunnel Advertisement?
Thread-Index: AdQNfntzUt1YMpFgRdSDKyEVQlgE4w==
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 18:54:34 +0000
Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B073B5F@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.89]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_006_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B073B5Fsjceml521mbschi_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ADGL9Ci623qCd1p6tSqSWiR0XMc>
Subject: [Idr] Are there any restriction on how to use the Color Sub-TLV specified by RFC5512 Tunnel Advertisement?
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 18:54:49 -0000

RFC5512 says:

[cid:image003.png@01D40D55.35E52D20]

draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-03 uses the Color Extended Community (as defined in [RFC5512]) to steer traffic into an SR Policy.

If we want to use "Color Sub-TLV" for more detailed information of end point, such as location, is it Okay?

Thank you very much

Linda Dunbar

From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 1:16 PM
To: 'idr@ietf.org' <idr@ietf.org>; 'pmohapat@cisco.com' <pmohapat@cisco.com>; 'erosen@cisco.com' <erosen@cisco.com>
Subject: Can RFC5512 specified Tunnel Advertisement be used for an endpoint to announce supporting multiple tunnel types?

BGP experts:

If an end point support multiple tunnel encapsulations (GRE, VxLAN, etc), does RFC5512 specified Tunnel Advertisements allow the endpoint to announce all those tunnel types? How?

Thank you.

Linda Dunbar

From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 1:03 PM
To: 'Linda Dunbar' <linda.dunbar@huawei.com<mailto:linda.dunbar@huawei.com>>; idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>; pmohapat@cisco.com<mailto:pmohapat@cisco.com>; erosen@cisco.com<mailto:erosen@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [Idr] Questions to RFC5512: Encapsulation sub-TLV and Opaque extended community to indicate the Encapsulation protocol?


BGP experts:

The RFC5512 has "distinguished SAFI value" and "the Encapsulation SAFI". Do those two terms have the same meaning?
The Section 3 of RFC5512 has SAFI value of 7 to represent Encapsulation SAFI.
Does it mean that the "distinguished SAFI value" is just "7" for speaker to advertise its supported Tunnel information?


The Section 4 goes on defining the Tunnel Encapsulation Type (such as L2TPv3 with Type =1; etc), and a list of sub-TLVs, one of the SubTLV is Protocol Type (section 4.2) which can be used to represent the Encapsulation Protocol (i.e. protocol type of data frames carried by the tunnel)

Why need the Opaque extended community to indicate the Encapsulation protocol?

[cid:image004.png@01D40D55.35E52D20]

[cid:image005.png@01D40D55.35E52D20]


Thank you very much.

Linda Dunbar

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email